Mary as Immaculate Conception

[zach_dunn]

I also note their is biblical precedent for this type of noun morphology. The Latin prefix co/con/com is from the Latin cum meaning with. The Greek word for with (συν -syn) also acts as a prefix. The example I have in mind is συνκληρονμοι - synkleronomoi = joint heirs. Or if we used parallel morphology - co-heirs.

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4789&t=KJV

This term is used four times in the NT, but the verse I have in mind is Romans 8:17

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together”

Obviously, if one objects to the term co-redemptrix on the basis that it supposedly implies equality, by the same logic, one would have to object to this teaching of St. Paul.

You are very correct, sir! Thank you for this information!

 

[JustaServant]

I have answered every question I have been asked. Here is the answer to all of your questions AGAIN Randy…We are ALL born with original sin…a chhild is not held accountable until the age of reason…it depends on the mental retardation. If something is done intentionally, yes its sin…Instead of saying I don’t answer things…how about getting things in order so you can finnd them…my answers should be right under your big question, but it is NOT…Paul is talkingn about original sin…do you consider stretchingn the truth a sin…it is, do you consider any kind of a lie a sin…it is, do you believe just looking at someone and wanting them is a sin…it is…when you are given to much change and you say nothing…is that a sin…it is…and so on…As for this other person who says that I have not answered them…I am going back to find what was ask and then tell you where you could have found my answers…I get sick of hearing how I don’t answer question…Two sights that I answered questions on are now closed, of course MY final answers are not on it…I wonder why? ? ? Wow these letters ar really big…I hope you can find this

Um…not sure how familiar you are with online forums, but you seriously need to calm down. Charity in posting is a requirement, not a suggestion.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Leslie, what brings you here to CAF? You don’t seem to be here for any “Catholic Answers”.

I know the answer to my questions, I just want to get your view point and see if a point could be made…guess not

 

[Leslie_Polley]

It does not matter whether you had previously heard of Nestorius or not.

What does matter is that your idea about Mary only being the mother of the human part of Jesus is false. It was first proposed by Nestorius and condemned by an ecumenical council more that 1,500 years ago.

If you look into the matter more deeply, I think you will come to condemn this error, also.

I am Italian on my mothers side and Italian, Irish, English on my fathers…My mother was my mother, but only responsable for the Italian side. She had nothing to do with the Irish or English…that was part of me…God was Jesus Father (the Holy Spirit) the divine part…Mary the human…she had nothing to do with the divine part.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

God was Jesus Father (the Holy Spirit) the divine part…Mary the human…she had nothing to do with the divine part.

Are you suggesting that Jesus is some kind of hybrid, half-human half-God? Because that’s how I’m reading this.

Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, the eternal Word [Logos] made flesh, as John says. That’s the mystery of the Incarnation.

 

[Louemma]

And what if the Church does proclaim her that? If you are truly Catholic, you would have to reexamine your views a bit . . . I can see where the co-redemptrix people are coming from. When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption, and without her “fiat” [Lk 1:38], we wouldn’t not have a redeemer at all. One should keep in mind the definition of “co-” . . .

co-
Prefix

1. with; together; joint; jointly
2. in or to the same degree
   3) a — one that is associated in an action with another
   … b — having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility
3. of, relating to, or constituting the complement of an angle

The entire third definition of “co-” is how Catholics view Mary. She is associated with the action, and she has an infinitely less share in the responsibility than Christ, but the responsibility is still there!

The church would not proclaim this because in doing so would put Mary in the same regards as Jesus.Then that would be worshipping Mary which we all know the church must not worship anyone but the Lord.
Let me define what I mean about worship…To place anyone in the same regards as our Lord and savior, that is the meaning of the word worship in this post

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, Jharek. I think this is another example of many ex-Catholics’ poor catechesis.

They leave what they* think* is the Catholic church (the church that “deifies” Mary, does not have Scripture in the Mass, does not read the Bible,), only to find–to their great dismay–when they come to the Catholic Answers Forums, that they have been greatly IGNORANT of the Catholic Church they left. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Are you suggesting that Jesus is some kind of hybrid, half-human half-God? Because that’s how I’m reading this.

That is the logical conclusion of this type of absurd reasoning.

I gave birth to 5 children. I did not give them their immortal souls, but their human nature comes from me (and their father, of course! Must give him some credit! ). However, I never say “I gave birth to 5 human natures.” That would be :whacky:

I say I gave birth to 5 persons. Period.

Just like Mary did not give birth to a human nature. She gave birth to a person. Period.

 

[Good_Fella]

In order for the doctrine of immaculate conception to be true, Mary would have to have been born in the same way Jesus was… She would have to be free of sin, yet we see Mary calling God her Savior…

By God’s gratuitous intervention (the Immaculate Conception), the Blessed Virgin Mary’s redemption was preservative, unlike ours which is curative or liberative. Duns Scotus argued that a perfect Redeemer should make use of this sovereign mode of redemption in regard to his own mother who would be intimately associated with him in the work of redemption. In view of the foreseen merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin and all actual sin by the sanctifying and habitual grace of God. Christ alone is immaculate of Himself by virtue of his substantial grace of union with God the Father. Our Lady is immaculate by virtue of the foreseen merits of her divine Son. God loves Himself infinitely and with absolute perfection, so it is becoming that he fashion a pure and spotless mother for His incarnate Self.

The glory of children is their parents.
Proverbs 17, 6

The Bible tells us that there is no one righteous, no not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Not to us, O Lord, not to us: but to thy name give glory.
Psalm 113, 1

The Greek word for “all” is *pantes * which precludes no exceptions to the rule. Original sin is a universal condition, but it is not a personal sin of which we are culpable. In His justice and mercy, God could have preserved Mary from the stain of original sin in all righteousness and without compromising His supreme goodness which is the object of the love God has for Himself. God prefers Himself to all things by preferring the sovereign good which is God. God does not deny Himself in redeeming Mary at the first instant of her conception by preserving her from a stain of sin, of which she was not personally guilty of, just as much He does not deny Himself by sending the Redeemer into the world to save the human race. But because of God’s preference in love towards the mother of His incarnate Self, in view of the perfect love of Himself above all created things, Mary’s redemption was preservative, unlike ours.

Grace is the effect of God’s love. The more God loves a person, the more grace she receives. There is no human being more loved by God than His own mother. The first plenitude of grace that Mary received upon her conception, because of her divine maternity, immeasurably excels the final consummated grace of all the holy ones (and angels) combined. David (Ps 14:1-3) does not include Mary among the widely corrupt. His use of hyberbole and broad language certainly does not pertain to the Mother of our Lord, who, according to Luke, was venerably hailed by the archangel Gabriel as the one who has been permanently perfected by grace in her existence (kecharitomene).

David acknowledged that people are naturally inclined to be corrupt. This is a consequence of original sin. But in the words of our Lady (Lk 1:48):“My spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness.” Mary spoke these words in recognition of His divine mercy, notwithstanding the absolutely perfect love God has for Himself. She acknowledged the undeserved and unmerited gift of God’s saving grace in her life. By the infused knowledge she had received through the Holy Spirit, Mary could confidently and assuredly declare her own redemption by the mercy and generosity of God, who preordained in view of the fall of Adam and Eve,that the Mother be preserved free from the stain of all corruption (Gen 3:15). God took the initiative and came to Mary’s aid because she was predestined from all eternity to be the mother of His Only-begotten Son. Upon her conception, Mary received a prevenient grace as a free gift of God’s mercy so that she would be a worthy mother of our Lord. And by His redemptive merits this was all made possible without the Father being untrue to Himself. His justice and mercy are one and co-exist in perfect harmony.

Certainly God does not contradict Himself by being merciful in his justice, seeing that He could never deny His own supreme goodness by bestowing His grace on anyone He pleases for whatever purpose He has preordained in His infinite wisdom. God’s justice and mercy, and power and wisdom, apparently exist on opposite extremes, but they are unified as attributes of God’s supreme goodness. God’s goodness was expressed in His merciful generosity towards Mary without compromising His justice because of the love God has for Himself: the Supreme Good. Mary did not have to be redeemed on account of any foreseen merits of hers. She was redeemed upon her conception by the foreseen merits of her divine Son because she was predestined to be His Mother. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary because of her faith in love. She fully cooperated with the grace she had received.

What have you that you have not received?
1 Corinthians 4, 7

Mary’s mother would have had to be immaculately conceived as well…

Mary’s mother gave birth to a human creature. There was no reason for God to graciously intervene in His justice and mercy in her case. His love for Himself and the Supreme Good is not denied.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[guanophore]

I know the answer to my questions, I just want to get your view point and see if a point could be made…guess not

If this is true, Leslie, and IF you really are interested in our viewpoint, pleased be advised that you are communicating the opposite to us.

When we give our viewpoint, and you tell us we are WRONG, it does not appear that you really are interested in learning what we think, and why.

What was the point you wanted to make? That the faith we received from teh Apostles is different from the gospel you have received? If that was it, then you have definitely made your point.

I am Italian on my mothers side and Italian, Irish, English on my fathers…My mother was my mother, but only responsable for the Italian side. She had nothing to do with the Irish or English…that was part of me…God was Jesus Father (the Holy Spirit) the divine part…Mary the human…she had nothing to do with the divine part.

I think I understand your point. No, Mary is not responsible for the Divine nature of Christ. However, He had two natures in one PERSON. She was the mother of His PERSON, not his “nature”.

No, the fact that he had two natures does not imply they were “at odds” with each other. His human nature and His divine nature were in cooperation with one another. His human nature, did suffer characteristics not part of the divine nature. His struggle in the garden is, in part, the natural human intinct for self preservation and avoidance of pain and suffering.

The church would not proclaim this because in doing so would put Mary in the same regards as Jesus.Then that would be worshipping Mary which we all know the church must not worship anyone but the Lord.
Let me define what I mean about worship…To place anyone in the same regards as our Lord and savior, that is the meaning of the word worship in this post

The Church probably will proclaim this, specifically to combat the heresy you identify here. Being co-heirs with Christ, and partakers of His grace, does not make us divine. We do not worship creatures just because they are fellow workers with the Lord, or because they participate and work alongside of Him to reconcile the world to HImself.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, Jharek. I think this is another example of many ex-Catholics’ poor catechesis.

They leave what they* think* is the Catholic church (the church that “deifies” Mary, does not have Scripture in the Mass, does not read the Bible,), only to find–to their great dismay–when they come to the Catholic Answers Forums, that they have been greatly IGNORANT of the Catholic Church they left. :sad_yes:

On the contrary, when I learned that I was greatly ignorant of the Catholic Church, I was overjoyed! I was dismayed at myself for leaving without informing myself, and casting about so many years in communities with only part of the Truth, but the more I learn about the Catholic faith, the less dismay I find.

 

[Louemma]

So let me see if I’m getting this right.
The Church is thinking and will probably elevate Mary’s position right up there as having the same importance as Jesus,as if they are coworkers,if you will.

 

[Louemma]

I

The Church probably will proclaim this, specifically to combat the heresy you identify here. Being co-heirs with Christ, and partakers of His grace, does not make us divine. We do not worship creatures just because they are fellow workers with the Lord, or because they participate and work alongside of Him to reconcile the world to HImself.

Then what is this poster saying?

 

[Louemma]

And what if the Church does proclaim her that? If you are truly Catholic, you would have to reexamine your views a bit . . . I can see where the co-redemptrix people are coming from. When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption, and without her “fiat” [Lk 1:38], we wouldn’t not have a redeemer at all. One should keep in mind the definition of “co-” . . .

co-
Prefix

1. with; together; joint; jointly
2. in or to the same degree
   3) a — one that is associated in an action with another
   … b — having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility
3. of, relating to, or constituting the complement of an angle

The entire third definition of “co-” is how Catholics view Mary. She is associated with the action, and she has an infinitely less share in the responsibility than Christ, but the responsibility is still there!

And this poster

 

[Louemma]

The Catholics had me worried on this one

 

[adriancombe]

The church would not proclaim this because in doing so would put Mary in the same regards as Jesus.Then that would be worshipping Mary which we all know the church must not worship anyone but the Lord.
Let me define what I mean about worship…To place anyone in the same regards as our Lord and savior, that is the meaning of the word worship in this post

Completely non sequitur and anti-biblical. Read post #437.

 

[zach_dunn]

The church would not proclaim this because in doing so would put Mary in the same regards as Jesus.Then that would be worshipping Mary which we all know the church must not worship anyone but the Lord.
Let me define what I mean about worship…To place anyone in the same regards as our Lord and savior, that is the meaning of the word worship in this post

I guess you didn’t read the post you quoted, Mary would not be “put . . . in the same regard as Jesus,” read it again:

When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption . . . The entire third definition of “co-” is how Catholics view Mary. She is associated with the action, and she has an infinitely less share in the responsibility than Christ, but the responsibility is still there!

That is not putting her “in the same regard as Jesus.”

 

[Louemma]

I guess you didn’t read the post you quoted, Mary would not be “put . . . in the same regard as Jesus,” read it again:

When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption . . . The entire third definition of “co-” is how Catholics view Mary. She is associated with the action, and she has an infinitely less share in the responsibility than Christ, but the responsibility is still there!

That is not putting her “in the same regard as Jesus.”

It’s a good thing

 

[zach_dunn]

So let me see if I’m getting this right.
The Church is thinking and will probably elevate Mary’s position right up there as having the same importance as Jesus,as if they are coworkers,if you will.

I guess Paul is guilty of elevating humans’ position right up there as having the same importance as Jesus . . .

1 Corinthians 3:9
“9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

Ephesians 3:6
“6 [T]hat is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” [Peter made the same mistake in 1 Pet 3:7]

He also thought he could save people . . .

1 Corinthians 9:22
“22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

And forgive sins . . .

2 Corinthians 2:10
“10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.” [cf Mk 2:7]

There you have it, Paul elevated humans and himself to the level of God . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

It’s a good thing

At least you are reasonable, thank you for that.